House Judiciary Committee okays resolution of contempt re: Miers and Bolten

Here we go:

The House Judiciary Committee, in a straight party-line vote, approved a contempt resolution against White House Chief of Staff John Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, setting up a constitutional battle between the Bush administration and Congress over executive privilege.

After several hours of skirmishing over whether to send a contempt resolution to the House floor, the committee voted by a 22-17 margin to approve the measure.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders will now have to decide if and when to hold a vote by the full House on the resolution. A vote could take place as early as next week, said Democratic insiders.

The Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Bolten on June 13 seeking any White House documents related to the firing of nine U.S. attorneys last year. The White House, claiming the documents are covered by executive privilege, has refused to turn over the documents.

Miers was subpoenaed to testify before the committee on the same day, but she never showed up for the hearing, also citing executive privilege.

Democrats argue that the failure by Bolten and Miers to comply with the subpoenas violates the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches and must not be allowed to stand.

All of this over the cooked-up ‘fired attorneys’ scandal. And Alberto Gonzales isn’t helping matters, either.

4 Responses to "House Judiciary Committee okays resolution of contempt re: Miers and Bolten"

KeithH says:

July 25, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Why should Miers and Bolton be any different from the rest of us? The Congressional Dems have been holding us in contempt for years.

What a waste of time and money… but at least it keeps them distracted.
G Monster says:

July 25, 2007 at 4:52 pm

I think it has already been established by President Clinton that it’s okay for the president to fire any attorneys as Clinton replaced all of them.

I also think it’s been established that the attorneys that the Bush Administration replaced, were replaced for good reason.

Kind of like it was already established that Richard Armitage was the leaker, but for some reason this doesn’t stop the dems.
sanity says:

July 25, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Now this is back from 1998 and Clinton:

A federal judge has ruled that President Clinton cannot use the power of his office to block prosecutors from questioning his senior aides, rejecting Clinton’s assertion of executive privilege in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, lawyers familiar with the decision said yesterday.

In a ruling issued under court seal Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson concluded that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s need to collect evidence in his obstruction of justice probe outweighs Clinton’s interest in preserving the confidentiality of White House discussions, the lawyers said.

Link

Now grated this was an Aide to Clinton, and there currently was an investigation of Obstruction of Justice going on.

There is no such evidence of such an investiagtion going on with Bush, nor has there been any charges of wrong-doing so far.

Now Miers I believe was the Presdient’s Lawyer at the time, not an aide, but the other “one-time political director Sara Taylor” was an aide and should not be able to be shielded under Executive Privledge.

Meirs I believe should and could claim lawyer / client confidentiality, that if she is advising the Presidnet as a Lawyer she should not have to testify, and should be under Executive Privledge on this portion of it.

As for the other one who was an aide, this is more tricky, because there is no proof of wrong doing in Bush’s case, it is a fishing expedition…..but even so, I do not think the aide would qualify for executive privledge shield and should testify.

So in short, Meirs I believe can be shielded this way.

This other aide, one-time political director Sara Taylor, I do not believe can be shielded and should testify, regardless if this is a fishing expedition or not.

Regardless, I believe this sums this up nicely:

“We are aware of no authority by which a congressional committee may `direct’ the Executive to undertake the task of creating and providing an extensive description of every document covered by an assertion of Executive Privilege,” he wrote. Fielding suggested that asserting executive privilege on the testimony comes as a result of this impasse and the lack of good faith it demonstrates on the part of Congress.

More broadly, Fielding suggested that the congressional inquiry into the entire matter of the U.S. attorneys’ dismissals has no constitutional basis, in large part because the president has sole authority to hire and fire federal prosecutors.

“Although we each speak on behalf of different branches of government, and perhaps for that reason cannot help having different perspectives on the matter, it is hoped you will agree, upon further reflection, that it is incorrect to say that the President’s assertion of executive privilege was performed without `good faith,’ ” Fielding’s letter said.

Another good evaluation is here at Forbes:

In his letter, Fielding said Bush had “attempted to chart a course of cooperation” by releasing more than 8,500 pages of documents and sending Gonzales and other senior officials to testify before Congress. The White House also had offered a compromise in which Miers, Taylor, White House political strategist Karl Rove and their deputies would be interviewed by Judiciary Committee aides in closed-door sessions, without transcripts. Democrats Patrick Leahy of Vermont and John Conyers of Michigan, the chairs of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, have rejected that offer.

On the other hand, Fielding said Bush “was not willing to provide your committees with documents revealing internal White House communications or to accede to your desire for senior advisors to testify at public hearings.

“The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch,” Fielding said.

“The doctrine of executive privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the president’s interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress’s interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications,” Fielding said.

“Further, it remains unclear precisely how and why your committees are unable to fulfill your legislative and oversight interests without the unfettered requests you have made in your subpoenas,” Fielding said. “Put differently, there is no demonstration that the documents and information you seek by subpoena are critically important to any legislative initiatives that you may be pursuing or intending to pursue.”

It was the second time in his administration that Bush has exerted executive privilege, said White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto. The first instance was in December, 2001, to rebuff Congress’ demands for Clinton administration documents.

Link

Here is some additional information:

What Secrets Are Protected Under a Claim of Executive Privilege?

Conflict Looms Over Executive Privilege
Terrye says:

July 25, 2007 at 7:35 pm

If this goes to the Supreme Court, Pelosi might end up wishing she had not started this all.

Comments are closed.